Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of popular breast cancer related websites and whether more popular sites are of higher quality. DESIGN: The search engine Google was used to generate a list of websites about breast cancer. Google ranks search results by measures of link popularity---the number of links to a site from other sites. The top 200 sites returned in response to the query "breast cancer" were divided into "more popular" and "less popular" subgroups by three different measures of link popularity: Google rank and number of links reported independently by Google and by AltaVista (another search engine). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and quality of content. RESULTS: More popular sites according to Google rank were more likely than less popular ones to contain information on ongoing clinical trials (27% v 12%, P=0.01 ), results of trials (12% v 3%, P=0.02), and opportunities for psychosocial adjustment (48% v 23%, P<0.01). These characteristics were also associated with higher number of links as reported by Google and AltaVista. More popular sites by number of linking sites were also more likely to provide updates on other breast cancer research, information on legislation and advocacy, and a message board service. Measures of quality such as display of authorship, attribution or references, currency of information, and disclosure did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Popularity of websites is associated with type rather than quality of content. Sites that include content correlated with popularity may best meet the public's desire for information about breast cancer.

Differences in performance for quality of care indicators for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) across various hospital categories in Texas

The study analyzed Hospital Compare data for Medicare Fee-for-service patients at least 65 years of age to determine whether hospital performance for AMI outcome and processes of care measures differ amongst Texas hospitals with respect to ownership status (for profit vs. not-for-profit), academic status (teaching vs. non-teaching) and geographical setting (rural vs. urban). ^ The study found a statistically significant difference between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals in four process-of-care measures (aspirin at discharge, P=0.028; ACE or ARB inhibitor for LSVD, P=0.048; Smoking cessation advice: P=0.034; outpatients who got aspirin with 24 hours of arrival in the ED, P=0.044). No significant difference in performance was found between COTH-member teaching and non-teaching hospitals for any of the eight process-of-care measures or the two outcome measures for AMI. The study was unable to compare performance based on geographic setting of hospitals due to lack of sufficient data for rural hospitals. ^ The results of the study suggest that for-profit Texas hospitals might be slightly better than not-for –profit hospitals at providing possible heart attack patients with certain processes of care.^